ArticleJournal of critical public health2025
'When they force a woman, it's to save her life': Gendered vulnerability and contraceptive coercion.
Article in Journal of critical public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The global family planning movement's entanglements with neo-Malthusian antinatalism, negative eugenics, and coercion at its foundation have been well-documented, but how eugenic ideologies and coercive tactics have evolved to manifest in current global family planning programs is less well-understood. Here, we draw from seventeen focus group discussions with women ages 15-49 in an anonymized African country to explore contraceptive coercion and eugenic logics in contemporary family planning programs through the lens of vulnerability and imperial feminism. We explore how respondents make sense of the pressure their communities face to use contraception, with results suggesting that coercion is commonplace in this context. Respondents shared a broad sense of acceptance of provider-imposed coercion, framing those who experience such coercion as vulnerable and in need of protection by healthcare providers and global development initiatives, whether they want it or not. The rationales offered to justify contemporary contraceptive coercion in this setting - poverty, disability, multiparity- often map closely to justifications for eugenic coercion that were promulgated over a century ago. These results highlight the need for a new research agenda to understand the extent of contraceptive coercion around the world, and to refocus the global family planning field on the promotion of contraceptive autonomy.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.